• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism

Goshin said:
Elon Musk is not motivated by greed. He made his billions already, and chose to invest most of it in technologies he believes will help humanity.


While I may disagree with some of his ideas, he's not the sort to deliberately defraud the gov for the sake of profits.
Click to expand...

If he has his own billions, then why does he need taxpayer money?
 
RetiredUSN said:
If he has his own billions, then why does he need taxpayer money?
Click to expand...



Because he's doing things NASA can't or won't, and our space development money is well spent when put into SpaceX. I imagine you've heard of satellite communications and are aware it is a big thing.
 
Goshin said:
Because he's doing things NASA can't or won't, and our space development money is well spent when put into SpaceX. I imagine you've heard of satellite communications and are aware it is a big thing.
Click to expand...

The Art Of Failing Successfully................is more like it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The Art Of Failing Successfully................is more like it.
Click to expand...



Every major success in science and technology is typically achieved after many failures.


Things SpaceX has done that NASA hasn't:

Landed rockets vertically on land.
Landed rockets vertically on a sea barge.
Re-used rockets after landing them after first use.


Things SpaceX has done no other private company has yet achieved:

Putting large payloads in orbit.
Delivering cargo to the space station.


As for the occasional exploding rocket? NASA has done that far more often than SpaceX.
 
JasperL said:
But you're refusing to admit the simple fact that a targeted tax incentive, such as for solar, but not nuclear or oil or gas or coal, is also a subsidy, and has the SAME effect on you as a direct grant.
Click to expand...

Im not refusing to admit. Im disagreeing with your perspective. To me, taking money out of my hands to give it a company is indeed welfare. Not taking money out of a companies hands is not welfare, and has no effect on me.
 
RetiredUSN said:
If he has his own billions, then why does he need taxpayer money?
Click to expand...

Only a little of it is actually taxpayer money. Most of it is in the form of tax deductions. The rest of it is actual sales. Tesla has revenue of 4 billion.
 
Government subsidies and support for renewable energy have helped to gain vital economies of scale. So today renewable energy is more and more competitive with fossil fuel. That gaining economical of scale would have taken a lot longer without subsidies.

The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. What's more, the price of batteries to store solar power when the sun isn't shining is falling in a similarly stunning arc.

Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. Even wind power, which was already established, doubled four times over the same period. For the first time, the two forms of renewable energy are beginning to compete head-to-head on price and annual investment.
Click to expand...

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Bloomberg

That at the same time there are a lot of advantage with renewable then that the cost is getting lower and lower. For example, to reduce global warming and to stop tens of thousands premature death from pollution from coal fired power plants just in the USA and EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/power-plant-air-pollution-coal-kills_n_833385.html

Also to get a more competitive and efficient energy market with greater power to the consumer. That small business, local communities and ordinary citizens can’t buy supertankers and build 2000 MW coal power plant, so the fossil fuel energy market is dominated by large corporation. While renewable energy sources can be of smaller scale and have smaller startup costs so they can be owned by ordinary citizens, local communities and small businesses.

Home - www.communitypower.eu
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Government subsidies and support for renewable energy have helped to gain vital economies of scale. So today renewable energy is more and more competitive with fossil fuel. That gaining economical of scale would have taken a lot longer without subsidies.



Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Bloomberg

That at the same time there are a lot of advantage with renewable then that the cost is getting lower and lower. For example, to reduce global warming and to stop tens of thousands premature death from pollution from coal fired power plants just in the USA and EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths

Power Plant Air Pollution Kills 13,000 People Per Year, Coal-Fired Are Most Hazardous: ALA Report | The Huffington Post

Also to get a more competitive and efficient energy market with greater power to the consumer. That small business, local communities and ordinary citizens can’t buy supertankers and build 2000 MW coal power plant, so the fossil fuel energy market is dominated by large corporation. While renewable energy sources can be of smaller scale and have smaller startup costs so they can be owned by ordinary citizens, local communities and small businesses.

Home - www.communitypower.eu
Click to expand...

They can pay for it themselves then. No need to tax me.
 
jonny5 said:
Im not refusing to admit. Im disagreeing with your perspective. To me, taking money out of my hands to give it a company is indeed welfare. Not taking money out of a companies hands is not welfare, and has no effect on me.
Click to expand...

But there really isn't anything to disagree with. It's just math that a targeted tax incentive and a grant have the same effect on you as a taxpayer, the company, the federal government. The examples I gave were simplified, but you can't show me why taxpayers or the special interests care whether Uncle Sam writes them a check, or just cuts their tax bill with a targeted tax incentive of the same amount.

I'll just quit by saying the lobbyists and special interests all recognize that a tax incentive = cash, which is one reason why the tax code is littered with them - special deductions, tax credits, tax deferral opportunities. It's just another way to transfer taxpayer dollars to special interests, and they are subsidies.
 
JasperL said:
But there really isn't anything to disagree with. It's just math that a targeted tax incentive and a grant have the same effect on you as a taxpayer, the company, the federal government. The examples I gave were simplified, but you can't show me why taxpayers or the special interests care whether Uncle Sam writes them a check, or just cuts their tax bill with a targeted tax incentive of the same amount.

I'll just quit by saying the lobbyists and special interests all recognize that a tax incentive = cash, which is one reason why the tax code is littered with them - special deductions, tax credits, tax deferral opportunities. It's just another way to transfer taxpayer dollars to special interests, and they are subsidies.
Click to expand...

Its not just math. Thats your opinion. I agree to disagree. Regardless, we're both against it.
 
jonny5 said:
Its not just math. Thats your opinion. I agree to disagree. Regardless, we're both against it.
Click to expand...

OK, but I encourage you to think about it and figure out why you can't challenge the math in the examples I gave earlier. It's not a big deal for this conversation, but it's important in the bigger picture because this distinction (or non-distinction depending on the perspective) is a big way and the reason politicians disguise taxpayer handouts through the tax code, with special deductions or tax credits handed out to favored special interests like candy.

One more example. Assume the community consists of only three families - yours, mine and Bob and Mary. We each pay $100 each year in taxes ($300 total) to fund our police department with a budget of $300. The next year, city council passes a tax credit of $100 for any family who adopts a child, and Bob and Mary do so and wipe out their tax bill. Collections drop by $100 to $200. Only two things CAN happen - either we cut the pay of our police by $100, OR, you and me now have to pay $133 in taxes, and Bob and Mary only $33 (tax of $133 less adoption credit of $100).

If city council had said, "we the city will directly pay $100 to any couple that adopts" we have the same result. City collects $300, $100 goes to Bob and Mary, leaving only $200 for the police OR taxes have to increase to $133 on each family ($400 total - police of $300 plus the $100 grant to Bob and Mary), but Bob and Mary get a $100 government check that cuts their net tax to $33.
 
JasperL said:
OK, but I encourage you to think about it and figure out why you can't challenge the math in the examples I gave earlier. It's not a big deal for this conversation, but it's important in the bigger picture because this distinction (or non-distinction depending on the perspective) is a big way and the reason politicians disguise taxpayer handouts through the tax code, with special deductions or tax credits handed out to favored special interests like candy.

One more example. Assume the community consists of only three families - yours, mine and Bob and Mary. We each pay $100 each year in taxes ($300 total) to fund our police department with a budget of $300. The next year, city council passes a tax credit of $100 for any family who adopts a child, and Bob and Mary do so and wipe out their tax bill. Collections drop by $100 to $200. Only two things CAN happen - either we cut the pay of our police by $100, OR, you and me now have to pay $133 in taxes, and Bob and Mary only $33 (tax of $133 less adoption credit of $100).

If city council had said, "we the city will directly pay $100 to any couple that adopts" we have the same result. City collects $300, $100 goes to Bob and Mary, leaving only $200 for the police OR taxes have to increase to $133 on each family ($400 total - police of $300 plus the $100 grant to Bob and Mary), but Bob and Mary get a $100 government check that cuts their net tax to $33.
Click to expand...

Youre still taking money from my pocket to put in theirs.
 
jonny5 said:
Youre still taking money from my pocket to put in theirs.
Click to expand...

That's right - in both cases - which is my point. When the city passed a tax credit for adoption, AND when they wrote a check to Bob Mary, they're taking money from your pocket to put in the pockets of families who adopt children. It's just how the math and budgeting works. :peace
 
Deuce said:
Oil subsidies, on the other hand, untouchable!
Click to expand...

Oil companies don't get any govt money. It's not clear how much Musk gets.
 
JasperL said:
That's right - in both cases - which is my point. When the city passed a tax credit for adoption, AND when they wrote a check to Bob Mary, they're taking money from your pocket to put in the pockets of families who adopt children. It's just how the math and budgeting works. :peace
Click to expand...

When they allow a deduction for you they arent taking money from me. Same thing with a tax credit, assuming you still pay net taxes. Lets just move on.
 
jonny5 said:
When they allow a deduction for you they arent taking money from me. Same thing with a tax credit, assuming you still pay net taxes. Lets just move on.
Click to expand...

We can move on, but just think about why you can't show me how or why my simple examples do not come to an identical result for you. They do - special tax credit = cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom